There\u2019s indeed been some wild trials as of late. Allow us to briefly identify a few legal cases prior to today\u2019s primary point\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First, from Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Massachusetts, a small town located on Boston\u2019s southwestern border\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Karen Read is on trial for the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, who was found dead in the snow outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts. Read is accused of intentionally striking O’Keefe with her SUV after a night of drinking, and then leaving him there to die in the freezing cold. She faces charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence, and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. Her first trial in 2024 ended in a hung jury, and a retrial began last month. Note that some of the evidence is indeed contentious (and societally noteworthy), including a Google search regarding \u201chow long to die in cold\u201d and when exactly it was made that night. Was it genuine concern or a dreadful conspiracy?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Next from New York City and the New York Court of Appeals\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The retrial of Harvey Weinstein has begun. With his 2020 conviction overturned, the court is hearing new charges against the previously highly successful American film producer. He is charged with multiple rape and other sex crimes. Over 100 women have accused Weinstein of being sexually harassed or assaulted, many who are well know actresses. What makes Weinstein\u2019s case seemingly significant is that he socialized with many Hollywood A-listers and politicians, particularly within the Democratic Party. Most have denounced him; he has also denied all charges. Significant also in this retrial is that the cultural moment has shifted since his conviction, with the #metoo movement having evolved from its original momentum and zeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And lastly, from the Royal Courts of Justice in central London\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attempting to overturn a 2020 decision by the UK government, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, lost a legal challenge denying him automatic, taxpayer-funded protection. His security was downgraded after he made the decision to stop being a working royal and moved to the US. (Apparently, he wanted to keep a few things.) Judge Sir Geoffrey Vos ruled that while Harry\u2019s safety concerns were both “powerful and moving,\u201d Harry’s “sense of grievance” did not “translate into a legal argument.\u201d In response, the former royal gave a reportedly surprise, lengthy interview to the BBC,<\/em> in which he said he was \u201cdevastated\u201d after losing the decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the things I oft find interesting is how we as a public react to prominent trials and legal scenarios. The bottom line is this: we have an opinion.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n How profound, right?<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2026 O.J. Simpson\u2026 Casey Anthony\u2026 Derek Chauvin\u2026 Bill Cosby\u2026 Jussie Smollett\u2026 Martha Stewart\u2026 Donald Trump\u2026 Bill Clinton\u2026 the guilty and the not\u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n We have an opinion.<\/strong> And let us be clear; there is nothing wrong with having an opinion. It is completely ok to think something\u2019s right, wrong or somewhere in between. It\u2019s completely ok to think he\/she did it or did not\u2026 he\/she deserves it or does not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The challenge within our opinion is the certainty which accompanies our <\/em>conviction. In other words, the \u201cI know he did it!\u201d\u2026 \u201cI know he did not!\u201d And just like that we forget one of the most important realities that the decade of media-and-cameras-everywhere often, so ostentatiously obscures\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n We weren\u2019t there.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n We weren\u2019t there when the impetus for the legal case happened. Our opinion is based on what other people saw and said. Maybe they have bias. Maybe they have a skewed perspective. Maybe it\u2019s skewed for reasons unknown to them. Maybe some other experience has shaped how they relayed what they saw and said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our vantage point is most always limited. Such is wise to remember. It should also impact and alter how we express our opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Respectfully\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n AR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There\u2019s indeed been some wild trials as of late. Allow us to briefly identify a few legal cases prior to today\u2019s primary point\u2026 First, from Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Massachusetts, a small town located on Boston\u2019s southwestern border\u2026 Karen Read is on trial for the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John … <\/p>\n